Randy's Blog

RSS Feed
Question of the week: Do you support the continuation of current law, which prohibits detainees from Guantanamo Bay from being transferred to prisons in the United States?
Posted by Randy | December 05, 2012
California Senator Dianne Feinstein released a report last week by the U.S. Government Accountability Office: Facilities and Factors for Consideration If Detainees Were Brought to the United States.  Senator Feinstein touted the report as proof that the U.S. could handle the detainees if the U.S. were to close military detention facilities at its Naval Station in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

“Since 2002, the United States has operated detention facilities in Guantánamo Bay to hold individuals detained during overseas counterterrorism operations. In 2009 the President directed the closure of these facilities within 1 year,” says the report. “Since then, a number of statutes have prohibited the transfer of Guantánamo Bay detainees to the United States. GAO was asked to review existing U.S. facilities and identify factors to be considered in the event that restrictions were lifted and Guantánamo Bay detainees were transferred to the United States.”

The GAO report lists six correctional facilities operated by the Department of Defense, including Naval Consolidated Brig Chesapeake, which are equipped to confine prisoners for more than one year.

Since 2009, Congressman Forbes has introduced and sponsored numerous pieces of legislation to prevent the transfer of detainees to Virginia and the rest of the United States. Congressman Forbes introduced legislation, H.R. 1638, to prohibit the use of federal funds to transfer detainees to locations in Virginia. Mr. Forbes was also a cosponsor of H.R. 2294, the Keep Terrorists Out of America Act and H.R. 1186, which prohibited the use of funds to transfer individuals detained Guantanamo Bay to facilities in Virginia. All these provisions were incorporated into the last three National Defense Authorization Acts and passed as law.

Question of the week: Do you support the continuation of current law, which prohibits detainees from Guantanamo Bay from being transferred to prisons in the United States?

( ) Yes
( ) No
( ) I don't know
( ) Other (Leave your comments below)


Take the poll here.

Find out the results of last week’s instapoll here.

Find out the results of my instapoll about the “Fiscal Cliff” here.
Post a Comment [ Permalink ]
Question of the week: Given China’s growing military capabilities, do you consider China….
Posted by Randy | November 30, 2012
Last the weekend, China’s Defense Ministry released video and pictures of a Chinese J-15 fighter jet taking off and landing from its aircraft carrier, the Liaoning.


The news marks a significant milestone for China 14 years after it acquired the unfinished carrier from the Ukraine, 18 months after its first sea trials and two months after its commissioning into the People’s Liberation Army Navy. Though significant work lies ahead to make the Liaoning combat operational,  the commencement of carrier-based, fixed-wing flight operations puts China in elite company, with only five other nations with these current capabilities – The U.S., Russia, France, India and Brazil.  

This comes during a time of increasing concern among China’s neighbors in the Pacific, many of which remain embroiled in territorial disputes with China over the long-term regional intentions of the People’s Liberation Army and the Chinese Communist Party.  This week, Congressman Forbes moderated an important discussion at the Foreign Policy Initiative entitled, “All Eyes on Asia: Perspectives From Our Allies” between representatives of several nations in the region on their security concerns and the re-rise of China.

Additionally, click here to read about Congressman Forbes’ work as Chairman and founder of the Congressional China Caucus, whose primary mission is to investigate and educate its members on the emergence of China’s global reach and the consequences of its growing international, economic, and political influence on U.S. interests.

Question of the week: Given China’s growing military capabilities, do you consider China….

( ) a partner of the United States
( ) friendly, but not a partner of the United States
( ) a competitor to the United States
( ) an adversary to the United States
( ) I don't know
( ) Other (Leave your comments below)

Take the poll here.

Find out the results of last week’s instapoll here.

Find out the results of my instapoll about the “Fiscal Cliff” here.
Post a Comment [ Permalink ]
Question of the week: Do you think Israel has the inherent right to defend itself from Hamas rocket attacks?
Posted by Randy | November 20, 2012
Since last Wednesday, Hamas militants have fired more than 1,000 rockets at Israeli communities, killing three and wounding 79. Several longer-range rockets have struck the outskirts of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, signifying Hamas’ increased capabilities.

In response,  Israel launched air strikes targeting Hamas facilities and rocket launching sites. Today marks seven days of fighting in the Gaza strip that has claimed the lives of 115 people and wounded 840.   

To read my recent statement on the violence in Israel, click here.

Please read some of my work on behalf of Israel below.

Question of the week: Do you think Israel has the inherent right to defend itself from Hamas rocket attacks?

(  ) Yes
(  ) No
(  ) I don’t know
(  ) Other (leave your comments below)


Take the poll here.

For results of last week’s poll, click here.

Find out the results of our instapoll about the “Fiscal Cliff” here.


Congressman Forbes’ work in support of a strong U.S.-Israeli relationship

Reaffirmed the importance of close U.S.-Israeli relations.  Congressman Forbes supported the U.S.-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act, S.2165, to extend vital defense relationships and ensure that the U.S. can continue to support Israel’s capability to defend itself. The bill also set a clear statement of policy that the United States should provide Israel with the military capabilities necessary to deter and defend against any threat, veto any one-sided anti-Israel resolutions at the U.N. Security Council, and support Israel’s inherent right to self-defense. This bill passed the House by voice vote.

Stood with Israel to foster the nation’s security.  Congressman Forbes co-sponsored H.R. 4229, the Iron Dome Support Act to authorize assistance to Israel for the Iron Dome anti-missile defense system.  The Iron Dome anti-missile system is essential to protecting the Israeli people from ongoing rocket attacks.  Only by ensuring Israel’s security as a foundation can a negotiated peace settlement be pursued.  Congressman Forbes knows that the Iron Dome anti-missile system is a vital component of Israel’s security and has joined over 75 of his colleagues in authorizing the President to assist Israel in the sustainment of the Iron Dome system.

(House Version of first Bill) Maintained Enhanced Security Cooperation between the United States and Israel.  Congressman Forbes supported passage of H.R. 4133, the U.S.-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act.  This bill expresses Congress’s continued support of the U.S.-Israeli security relationship and directs the President to assist Israel in ensuring our nation’s closest ally in the Middle East does not lose its qualitative military edge.  To ensure Israel’s military edge, the U.S. must further develop advanced technology programs between our nation and Israel.  Additionally, this bill directs the President to report to Congress on the actions being taken to expand cooperation between the United States and Israel in homeland security, counter-terrorism, cyber security and other appropriate areas.  As a cosponsor of this bill, Congressman Forbes voted in favor of H.R. 4133 when it passed in the House 411-9.

Affirmed Israel’s right to self-defense.  Congressman Forbes cosponsored H. Res. 271, expressing support for the State of Israel’s right to defend its sovereignty and to use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran.  In response to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s November report that Iran was actively pursuing a nuclear weapon, Congressman Forbes, along with 63 other Members of the House of Representatives, have cosponsored this resolution to ensure our nation’s closest ally in the Middle East knows that it has the support of the United States as it takes action to protect Israeli sovereignty and the Israeli people. 

Making the Palestinian Authority accountable for its support of terrorism.  Congressman Forbes cosponsored H.R. 2457, the Palestinian Accountability Act.  This legislation restricts U.S. funding to the Palestinian Authority (PA) until key benchmarks of transparency and support for peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are accepted by PA leadership.  These standards include the dismantling of the PA’s infrastructure that support of terrorism, an end to inciting violence through the PA educational system, recognition of Israel’s right to exist, and exclusion of Hamas from any PA unity government.  Until the PA meets these new standards, H.R. 2457 would prohibit U.S. foreign assistance funds from being made available to the organization and would stop U.S. funding for any United Nations entity that recognizes Palestinian statehood.  Congressman Forbes remains dedicated to a peaceful resolution to the conflict that is reached by direct negotiations between the Israeli government and the Palestinian people.  This bill is currently cosponsored by 41 House Members.

Supported moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.  Congressman Forbes cosponsored H.R. 1006, the Jerusalem Embassy and Recognition Act of 2011.  This bill officially recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and relocates the United States Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.  Since the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 became law, the Embassy has never been moved due to recurring waivers signed by the sitting President.  This bill would remove the presidential authority to waive the embassy relocation and would finally implement standing U.S. law.  Congressman Forbes, along with 50 other cosponsors, continues to stand with Israel and continues to support Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Stood in steadfast support of Israel.  Congressman Forbes voted to support H.Res.268, a resolution reaffirming the United States’ commitment to a negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.  This resolution asserts that peace can only be achieved in the region when the Palestinians accept the right of Israel to exist and requires that Hamas, a known terrorist organization and member of the Palestinian unity government, must accept previous agreements to renounce violence and recognize the state of Israel.  This resolution passed by a vote of 407-6.
Post a Comment [ Permalink ]
Question of the week: Do you support legislation requiring an investigation into what happened in Benghazi and why calls from our diplomats on the ground for additional security went unanswered?
Posted by Randy | November 15, 2012
Many questions remain in the two months since the September 11th terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya, where the United States Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, and three other Americans were killed.

James Carafano and Morgan Lorraine Roach from the Heritage Foundation wrote, “Understanding what was behind the September 11, 2012, terrorist attack on the U.S. facility in Benghazi and the tragic results is vital for preparing for future security threats to embassies, consulates, and diplomatic missions. The attack in Benghazi reveals a terrorist attack profile that the U.S. is likely to see again. If the U.S. is to learn the lessons of this tragedy and prepare for the next 9/11, it should get unvarnished, complete, and accurate answers to four key questions regarding the security for the Benghazi consulate.”

Despite repeated requests for security assistance and increased assaults against Western interests in the Middle East, the administration has yet to explain why no U.S. armed forces were available to aid these four American citizens.

A recent statement by Senators McCain, Graham, Ayotte and others asked the President “to level with the American people and tell us what happened and why these four brave Americans were not better protected.”

I share their concerns and have co-sponsored a bill, H.R. 6511, that requires the President to report to Congress on the September 11th attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, as well as installations in Egypt, Yemen and in Libya's capital of Tripoli. Additionally, the bill condemns those attacks and offers condolences to the families of those killed in Benghazi, Libya.

Question of the week: Do you support legislation requiring an investigation into what happened in Benghazi and why calls from our diplomats on the ground for additional security went unanswered?

( ) Yes
(  ) No
(  ) I don’t know
( ) Other (Leave your comments below)


Take the poll here.

Find out the results of last week’s instapoll about the “Fiscal Cliff” here.
Post a Comment [ Permalink ]
Question of the week: In the wake of recent violence, unrest and protests directed against the United States, what should be the foreign policy response from the United States to countries like Egypt or Libya?
Posted by Randy | September 20, 2012

Tragically, on September 11th in Benghazi, Libya, the United States Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, and three other Americans were murdered. This was the first U.S. Ambassador who had been murdered since 1979.  

These deaths occurred amidst angry and sometimes violent anti-American protests near U.S. embassies and consulates throughout the Middle East in the countries like Egypt, Yemen, Libya, and Tunisia.  In some cases, protesters were burning American flags and effigies of President Obama.

( ) Tether foreign aid to pro-democracy, religious freedoms and human rights benchmarks

( ) Reduce or eliminate foreign aid

( ) Sever diplomatic ties and/or remove embassy staffs

( ) Bolster embassy security with elite Marine units

( ) Continue engagement with these foreign governments to combat terrorism and promote democracy.   

( ) I don't know.

( ) Other. (Please share your comments and ideas on my blog below).

Take the poll here.

Find out the results of last week’s instapoll here.

Post a Comment [ Permalink ]
Question of the Week: Do you support tapping into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to attempt to temporarily alleviate gas prices at the pump?
Posted by Randy | August 17, 2012
Reuters reported this week that the White House was considering releasing oil from the United States’ Strategic Petroleum Reserve if gasoline prices do not fall after September 3rd. in order to provide some relief at the gas pump just two months before the November 6th election.

Oil prices have risen sharply in recent weeks, rising 30 cents to $3.71 per gallon, according to AAA’s Daily Fuel Gauge Report.

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is the Department of Energy’s emergency fuel storage of oil, along the U.S. Gulf coast, with a capacity of 727 million barrels of oil.  According to Bloomberg Business Week, the reserve “currently has 696 million barrels of crude, the equivalent of 80 days worth of oil imports.”

The Department of Energy (DOE) states on its website, “The Strategic Petroleum Reserve exists, first and foremost, as an emergency response tool the President can use should the United States be confronted with an economically-threatening disruption in oil supplies.”

According to the DOE, a Presidentially-directed release has occurred three times under these conditions. First, in 1991, at the beginning of Operation Desert Storm, the United States joined its allies in assuring the adequacy of global oil supplies when war broke out in the Persian Gulf. The second was in September 2005 after Hurricane Katrina devastated the oil production, distribution, and refining industries in the Gulf regions of Louisiana and Mississippi. The third was announced on June 23, 2011 for 30 million barrels of petroleum to be released to offset the disruption in global oil supplies caused by unrest in Libya and other countries.

A 2011 Congressional Research Service report noted that while the reserve has traditionally been tied to a shortage of oil supplies, “price was deliberately kept out of the president’s . . . drawdown authority because of concerns about what price level would trigger a drawdown, and that any hint of a price threshold could influence private sector and industry inventory practices.”

Question of the week: Do you support tapping into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to attempt to temporarily alleviate gas prices at the pump?

( ) Yes

( ) No

( ) Other (share your thoughts on my blog here).

Take the poll here.

Find out the results of last week's instapoll here.
Post a Comment [ Permalink ]
Question of the Week: If Iran continues with its nuclear research, which of the following actions do you believe is the most appropriate for the United States?
Posted by Randy | March 07, 2012

This week, President Obama met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to discuss concerns and difference regarding Iran's suspected nuclear program. USA Today reports that “there seemed to be stark differences between the two leaders on just how dire the situation is. Obama repeated that he believes there is 'still a window that allows for a diplomatic resolution to this issue' and noted again the 'crippling sanctions' his administration and Europe have imposed on Iran.” Prime Minister Netanyahu has warned that the time for a diplomatic solution is running out. He told President Obama “I think that above and beyond that are two principles, long-standing principles of American policy … that Israel must have the ability always to defend itself, by itself, against any threat; and that when it comes to Israel's security, Israel has the right, the sovereign right to make its own decisions.” Since that point, questions have been raised about U.S. policy towards Iran and whether military action against Iran is necessary. 

Question of the Week: If Iran continues with its nuclear research, which of the following actions do you believe is the most appropriate for the United States? 

(  ) The U.S. should act using all available options to stop Iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon.
(  ) The U.S. should support Israel’s right to defend itself.
(  ) The U.S. should only support strong diplomatic sanctions.
(  ) The U.S. should do nothing unless Iran attacks the U.S.
(  ) Other (leave your comment below)

Take the poll here.  

Find the results of last week’s instaPoll here.
Post a Comment [ Permalink ]
Standing in Unity for Youcef Nadarkhani
Posted by Randy | March 01, 2012

This week, we in America who enjoy the fundamental human right of religious freedom have the opportunity to stand in unity for Iranian Christian Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani. The House of Representatives passed today, with my support, H.Res.556, a resolution introduced by Rep. Joseph Pitts (R-PA) condemning the Government of Iran for its continued persecution, imprisonment, and sentencing of Mr. Nadarkhani for refusing to recant his Christian faith.

Last night, I spoke on the House floor on this important resolution. You can watch my remarks by clicking here or by clicking the video below.

As Members of Congress come together on the House floor this week in support of this Resolution, I encourage Americans of all faiths and political persuasions across the country to join in prayer at the same time for Mr. Nadarkhani.


 

 
Post a Comment [ Permalink ]
Strengthening U.S. Commitment to Israel
Posted by Randy | December 09, 2011

I want to share with you details on legislations I have recently cosponsored to strengthen U.S. commitment to Israel.

Jerusalem Embassy and Recognition Act, H.R. 1006

This legislation states that it is U.S. policy to recognize Jerusalem as the undivided capital of the State of Israel and that the U.S. Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem not later than January 1, 2013. The bill also authorizes the necessary funds to acquire and maintain the buildings necessary to carry out this task.

Palestinian Accountability Act, H.R. 2457

This legislation would halt open-ended commitment to Palestinians by prohibiting U.S. aid and preventing any U.S. government document from referring to any region under the Palestinian Authority (PA) control until the PA meets a number of standards:

  • Recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state;
  • That it end corruption, promote democracy, and stop influencing elections in Palestinian territories;
  • Strongly condemn terrorism, bring terrorists to justice, and end the incitement to violence and hatred;
  • And either exclude Hamas from government or publicly bind it to this Act’s requirements.

This bill would also prohibit U.S. contributions to the United Nations (UN) if the UN or any UN entity recognizes statehood for the Palestinian territories.

 

At such a time of increasing regional instability, I believe it is critical that the U.S. make clear our long-standing commitment to Israel.

 

Share your feedback on these bills by leaving a comment below.

Post a Comment [ Permalink ]
Meeting with Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu
Posted by Randy | November 16, 2011

Last week, I had the opportunity to travel to Israel to meet with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu among escalating tensions in the region. As Chairman of the House Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee, I believe it is essential that the U.S. express its support for Israel’s right to protect itself from external threats.  Our visit to Israel visit coincided with the release of the IAEA's report confirming that Iran's nuclear program has an explicit military dimension with the purpose of producing warheads that fit onto medium-range missiles, threatening Israel's very existence.   

During our visit, we toured Hebron, Samaria, and the Golan Heights and were afforded the opportunity to visit Iron Dome, a mobile air defense system designed to intercept short-range rockets and artillery shells.

 Meeting with PM Binyamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem Nov. 7, 2011

At such a time of increasing regional instability, it is critical that the U.S. make clear our long-standing security and financial commitments to Israel. Over the past year, I have taken several actions to express my steadfast support of the steps Israel has taken to ensure the peace and security of its homeland, including joining 78 of my colleagues in expressing our support  to Prime Minister Netanyahu and submitting remarks to the Congressional Record.

You can learn more about my efforts in support of Israel here.

Post a Comment [ Permalink ]

Services

Other Services

Issues

More Issues